Trial reportBMC oral health2026
Implant stability following septal expansion in immediate mandibular molars: a pilot randomized clinical trial comparing piezoelectric surgery and osseodensification.
Trial report in BMC oral health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06957860 (Septal Bone Expansion Using Osseodensification Versus Piezoelectric Implant Site Preparation for Immediate Implant Placement in Mandibular Molars [Randomized Clinical Trial]), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Septal Bone Expansion Using Osseodensification Versus Piezoelectric Implant Site Preparation for Immediate Implant Placement in Mandibular Molars [Randomized Clinical Trial]
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundImmediate implant placement (IIP) in mandibular molars is challenged by wide extraction sockets and limited septal bone support. This pilot feasibility randomized clinical trial evaluated primary and secondary implant stability following septal expansion using piezoelectric surgery (PISP) compared with osseodensification (OD) using Densah
methodsTwenty patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to either PISP group or OD group for immediate mandibular molar implant placement. The primary outcome was implant stability quotient (ISQ), measured immediately and at 3 months. Secondary outcomes included insertion torque, osteotomy preparation time, and postoperative pain assessed using a visual analogue scale (VAS) during the first postoperative week. Normality was evaluated using Shapiro-Wilk tests and Q-Q plots. Between-group comparisons were performed using independent t-tests, while VAS scores were analyzed using Mann-Whitney U and Friedman tests (α = 0.05).
resultsNo statistically significant differences were observed between groups in primary or secondary ISQ (p > 0.05). Both groups demonstrated a significant increase in ISQ at 3 months compared with baseline (p < 0.001). The mean insertion torque was significantly higher in the PISP group (40.33 ± 3.24 Ncm; p = 0.004) compared to the OD group (35.00 ± 3.53 Ncm). Osteotomy preparation time was significantly longer in the PISP group (9.00 ± 0.94 min) than in the OD group (6.00 ± 0.82 min) (p < 0.001). Postoperative VAS pain scores were significantly lower in the PISP group throughout the first week (p < 0.05). All implants achieved clinical stability with no intra- or postoperative complications.
conclusionsThe preliminary findings of this pilot feasibility trial demonstrated that PISP achieves comparable biomechanical stability to OD, establishing its clinical feasibility for immediate molar implant placement in anatomically complex posterior regions.
trial registrationNCT06957860 ; registered May 5, 2025.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.